Just For Fun

Below are my snap reactions after listening to tonight's first debate among the Democratic candidates for president. I say "listening to" because that's what I did, I should point out right up front. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I actually could only manage to catch the audio of the debate on AM radio. I mention this as possibly influencing my reactions, because ever since the first televised debate in history, the difference between watching and listening can at times be enormous (people who heard that debate on the radio thought Nixon won, people who saw it on television thought Kennedy won). So if there were any profound visuals tonight, I missed them.

Overall, I would agree with some of the closing statements -- this was a much more substantial debate than anything the Republicans have yet put on. No insults were hurled, no bigoted statements were made, on the whole it was a lot more sober than watching Trump take on all comers. However, having said that, tonight's debate was a lot more spirited and feisty than I expected. There weren't direct face-to-face confrontations, but a lot of differences were clearly outlined between the candidates' stances.

The moderators did a reasonable job, although I would have liked Anderson Cooper to have given the other moderators more of a chance to ask questions. Several times, Cooper missed opportunities to explore real policy differences between the candidates when they arose, instead sticking to his script (or list of questions) rather than digging into the details with timely follow-up questions. But, overall, I've seen a lot worse debate moderators, so it didn't detract from the experience all that much.

Of course, Joe Biden didn't fly in to the debate at the last minute, much to the disappointment of CNN. Because he is not a candidate and wasn't at the debate, I'm not going to mention him further. I was a little surprised that nobody bothered to mention why Lawrence Lessig wasn't on stage tonight -- I assume he didn't meet some rule for inclusion, but it was never talked about. I'll be interested to see his reaction to not being on the stage, though.

While the three minor candidates didn't have much of a cheering section, the audience support for both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was vocal, and (to my ears, at least) about evenly split. When applause lines were delivered, the crowd roared for both pretty equally.

OK, that's enough of an overview, so let's get on to reactions for all the candidates on stage. Again, due to external events, I wasn't able to take notes (as I normally do while debate-watching), so my comments on each of the individual candidates will be a little more broad and general than usual. Also, I'm going to start at the edges of the stage and work my way inwards, for no particular reason.

Jim Webb

Why is this man running for president as a Democrat? That's the question I kept asking myself all night long, listening to Webb. He holds several positions that would seem a better fit in the Republican Party, and he himself was one of the party-switchers on stage tonight (along with former Goldwater Girl Clinton, former Republican senator Chafee, and former Independent Sanders). Webb tried the tactic of "complaining to the moderators that he wasn't being given enough time," which to the best of my knowledge has never worked for any minor candidate to date (other than making him look a little petulant). Webb gave me no real reason to vote for him tonight, and no clear indication that he would convince many Democrats to back him either.

Lincoln Chafee

Chafee also failed to give much rationale explaining why he was in the race. At least he seems to have embraced being a Democrat in much more whole-hearted fashion than Webb, but beyond that Chafee turned in a pretty forgettable performance, at least to my ears. Chafee did stumble badly once, and Anderson Cooper actually was on the ball and caught him on it. When asked about his vote to jettison the Glass-Steagall banking laws back in 1999, Chafee complained that it was "his very first vote" as a senator, as if this excused him somehow from casting a knowledgeable vote. He tried to recover by pointing out how many other senators voted for it, but this merely drew attention to the fact that Sanders actually voted against it. While Chafee's performance wasn't as puzzling as Webb's, I was still left with part of that question (Why is this man running for president?) completely unanswered.

Martin O'Malley

Martin O'Malley enjoys a position in the mainstream inside-the-Beltway media closely akin to Jon Huntsman in a previous Republican nomination contest. All the media really thinks O'Malley should be in the number two slot, challenging Hillary, but the voters just haven't yet agreed. O'Malley gave it his best shot tonight, trying to differentiate himself from both Clinton and Sanders. Even so, he didn't make much in the way of inroads with the crowd with his attempt at introducing himself to a wider audience. Maybe the polling will show differently, but O'Malley really didn't stake out a clear and cohesive position that sounded all that different than the generic Democratic position on most issues. I guess if you want to see a generic Democrat in the White House, then Martin's your guy, but I just don't see it happening, personally. I would watch for him to get increasingly shrill in the next debate, as he struggles to define his candidacy better in relation to Clinton and Sanders. The media have fallen in love with the idea of O'Malley as a challenger, but O'Malley as an actual candidate wasn't all that inspiring.

Bernie Sanders

I though Bernie got off to a somewhat shaky start, but he did settle down and got better throughout the evening. Sanders is the only candidate I've seen speak on the stump live, so I pretty much knew what to expect in his answers, and while he didn't disappoint, I did think he failed to press his advantage several times during the evening. To give one example, when the debate shifted to family leave policy, Bernie could have brought up how he supports not only mandatory family leave but also mandatory sick leave and mandatory paid vacations as well -- which none of the other candidates fully support. He missed a few opportunities to draw sharper distinctions between himself and Clinton throughout the evening. Perhaps he was keeping his powder dry for future debates, or perhaps he just didn't want to appear too far apart from the other candidates. But even having said that, Bernie did manage to make his case strongly for the issues he did choose to talk about. You could see the main difference between him and Clinton -- Bernie wants big changes, Clinton would be satisfied with incremental changes. That was quite clear, all evening long.

Sanders also achieved separation from Clinton on the issue of Wall Street -- which was entirely to be expected, really. It's the heart of Bernie's campaign, and Hillary (as she actually admitted at one point) "was the senator for Wall Street." I will also predict that the one big moment all the news runs as their favorite clip was when Bernie jumped to Hillary's defense on the email issue. His answer was so rousing that it overshadowed even Clinton's strong answer on how the issue's been politicized so much. So watch for that one, on the late news (and, likely, on the late-night comedy shows).

Overall, I'm not sure if Sanders changed any Democratic voters' minds or not. We'll have to wait a week or so to see the impact of the debate on the polling to know for sure. Again, I've heard Bernie's stump speech, but there are millions out there who haven't yet heard Bernie speak, and got introduced to him tonight. He didn't make any huge gaffes, and presented his case well all night long. For those who hadn't heard what Bernie's all about, perhaps he will change a few minds.

Hillary Clinton

Being the frontrunner of the Democratic pack, Hillary was the candidate to beat on tonight's stage. Several of the other candidates took some shots at her, but it didn't seem to do her much damage. She had fairly reasonable answers to all the attacks, which were fairly muted to begin with (again: this wasn't a Republican-style free-for-all). So I didn't hear any disqualifying moments from Clinton that she's going to struggle to explain away later in the campaign. She did a pretty admirable job of defending herself tonight.

Clinton was obviously prepped for the debate, and she seemed to want her emotion to come out in a way the voters really haven't seen from her yet this year. She was passionate about certain issues, she was defiant on others, and you could hear the conviction in her voice and in her statements. She came off as a lot less wooden than she's so far seemed on the campaign trail, and even got a few funny lines in. Although she certainly rehearsed for the debate extensively, her answers (at least, most of them) didn't sound rehearsed. That's a major victory for Clinton, who has always had a problem on this front.

Clinton did meet many pundits' predictions tonight, in continually trying to bend the argument (on many issues) away from her differences with the other Democrats back to the enormous gulf between any Democrats' position and that of the Republicans. This actually helped everyone on the stage, as it kept reminding the audience why this election will be so important for Democrats to win. Other candidates also made this attempt, but none so consistently as Clinton.

Clinton turned in a strong performance tonight, and I'd be willing to bet she'll be named the "winner" of the debate by all the pundits tomorrow. She finally got the chance to talk about something other than Benghazi or emails, and she used that opportunity to appear much more human than she's so far managed. Clinton has always been a solid debater, and she turned in a solid performance tonight.

I'm still unsure whether Clinton's performance will change many voters' minds, though. What it should do is to give her supporters a lot more excitement for her campaign. Clinton went a long way towards reminding Democratic voters why they could enthusiastically vote for her, rather than just voting for her out of a sense of duty to the Democratic Party.

OK, that's it for my snap reactions to tonight's debate, but feel free to share yours in the comments. I'm now going to go read what others in the media are saying, to see some of the other reactions out there.

She finally got the chance to talk about something other than Benghazi or emails,

And I am sure she was happy about that. :D

But that's the nice thing about this particular Clinton scandal..

In a couple weeks, we'll have a NEW batch of Clinton Emails and the whole process will start over and over... We'll find out more nasty deeds and lies of Hillary Clinton and we'll be reminded AGAIN how much of a liar and how untrustworthy she is..

She keeps going on and on about how her personal, homebrew insecure bathroom closet email server was "allowed"..

Yet, she cannot NAME the person who "allowed" it... She cannot come up with the person who "allowed" a personal, homebrew insecure bathroom closet email server to be used EXCLUSIVELY by the United States Secretary Of State...

Funny how that is, eh??

Enjoy your few minutes of scandal free air, Hillary.. Your next batch of emails is coming and then there will be more after that and more after that and more after that...

And ALL you had to do to avoid this was the ONE thing you are incapable of doing..

And what makes this entire scandal so tragically hilarious is that, contrary to the BS spouted by the Clintonistas and the Hillary Apologists (you know who you are.. :D) ALL of the drip, drip, drip, ALL of these wounds, all of these thousands of cuts are completely and UNEQUIVOCALLY self-inflicted..

Oh sure, the Clintonistas and Apologists love to point fingers at the GOP and scream hysterically, "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!!" but the simple fact is, Hillary has ONLY herself to blame.

It was HER choice to evade Congress and public disclosure and hide her actions behind a private insecure bathroom closet mailserver..

It was HER choice that risked national security and the lives of covert operators and agents..

As much as the Hysterical Left would like people to believe otherwise...

This is ALL, 1000%, unequivocally and unarguably on Hillary Clinton...

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

I'm not sure who did Clinton's makeover, possibly Industrial Light and Magic, but she appeared to have lost at least 15 years. IMHO media people tend to underestimate her considerable debating skills...she had a very good night. Best in show...

But not by much..Sanders looked like the only non-millionaire candidate, and sounded like one too. Strong performance from him on his economic positions, which seem to be pushing Clinton a bit left, which I think to be Sanders' primary reason for running in the first place. The guy knows politics.

I followed the debate online and so am reacting to other reactions, but what Chris writes is pretty much in line with the general response. After the debate I checked in on people's responses on various Facebook pages and overwhelmingly Democrats expressed pride in the quality of all 5 candidates as compared to the Repub field, and huge pleasure at the civility of the exchanges. People kept talking about how great it was to hear people be able to have differing opinions without demonizing each other. Talking Points Memo polling overnight reports that Bernies favorabilities went up and unfaves went down; Hillary's faves went up too, but not as markedly as Bernie's. But she picked up support from undecideds and people leaning to Biden. Good night for both; moderate night for O'Malley and Webb and Chaffee made little progress for themselves. but contributed to a sense that the overall field was competent and no one is a "joke".

So your position is that ALL polling is worthless?
A kind of statistical masturbation? I would say that's a fair cop for most if not all volunteer polls, but would not go so far as to say scientific polling is entirely worthless. It produces estimates, and the estimates are subject to error. The error can be estimated, and part the error involves sample bias.

As I noted a few weeks ago, it's getting harder and more expensive to conduct scientific polling.
Some of this is due to rapid changes in mass communications, some is due to rapid shifts in demographics, and some is due to increased crankiness about responding to polls that eat up scarce free time. Meta analysis of multiple polls can mitigate these problems to some extent, but simply tweaking time honored pooling methodologies is no longer enough.

Statistical model and sampling procedures are evolving (nothing like a good kick in the head to encourage faster evolution), and increasingly I think these procedure are going to resemble incentivized prediction markets....like the ones I summarize now and again on this very blog.

Speaking of prediction markets, both Clinton and Sanders show a modest uptick in trading volume and a higher probability of winning the nomination. Mostly at the expense of Biden. This is the biggest fluctuation I've seen in many months. Polls tend to lag in the same direction as the markets, but we will see.

Clinton is currently given about a 75% chance of securing the nomination, close to her all time high of 80%. Sanders is a bit volatile around 15%, about 2% below his high water mark. Biden chances are half what they were immediately before the debate.

Historically yes. As I have said before, there is no dispute about that. HOWEVER, that is not the Democratic Party of TODAY. TODAY, the Confederates have indeed migrated to the Republican Party. A process that has happened during the Johnson/Nixon/Reagan ERA, with the Civil Rights Movement and the "Southern Strategy."

Historically yes. As I have said before, there is no dispute about that. HOWEVER, that is not the Democratic Party of TODAY. TODAY, the Confederates have indeed migrated to the Republican Party. A process that has happened during the Johnson/Nixon/Reagan ERA, with the Civil Rights Movement and the "Southern Strategy."

So, what you are saying is that ALL Americans share the "collective guilt" of our ancestors vis a vis slavery and such...

EXCEPT the Democrat Party... Which is utterly and completely DIVORCED from it's history of BEING the Party of the KKK, the Party of slavery and has absolutely NO responsibility "TODAY" for their past....

How exactly does that work??

I mean, if EVERY Americans shares the collective guilt of slavery, wouldn't that logically mean that the PARTY of Slavery, the PARTY of the KKK would share even MORE of that collective guilt??

I did not watch the debates and have only read snippets and commentary on them but my take away is Bernie went from a long shot to a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. Disavowing capitalism is not going to fly with enough of this country to get the votes required. And it probably shouldn't. Capitalism as a devotional religion leaves a lot to be desired but as a regulated and nurtured economic system, it seems to work dam well. Bernie's problem is if he becomes the Democratic nominee, it doesn't matter who the republican nominee is, Bernie will be running against Ronald Reagan. For the most part, though worshiped, St Ronald of Reagan is too far left for the modern right to use him for sound bites. There is one major exception. Reagan for most his life has battled socialism. There are hours and hours of footage of him railing against it. All of that will be played ad nauseam by right wing Super PAC's. I just don't see Bernie trying to explain his brand of socialism enough get a head of that.

I've heard this elsewhere, and I think it has more to do with the personalities of the debate moderators. If the same moderators had hosted both debates, your point would be stronger, in other words. I'm kind of astonished at the praise Anderson Cooper is getting today, because I thought he only did a competent job, at best.

[2 & 3] -

Getting more worried about Clinton, I see... heh...

[5] -

Yeah, Bernie obviously won the opinion war online. But as I predicted, pretty much all of the punditocracy proclaimed a big Hillary win.

[6] -

You are correct. Right up until 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Since then, the migration turned into a stampede. (See: history more recent than 1964, for further facts)

John From Censornati [7] -

You are correct, they were not scientific polls. My thought was that Bernie supporters are akin to online marijuana reform supporters, but then take a look at the article I just posted...

Michale [8] -

The real polls will be out within the next week. It takes time to do a poll right. But I must confess, I have no idea what the polling will show. Did the public agree Hillary won? Or will they shift to Bernie? Remains to be seen... patience...

TheStig [10] -

I did miss the Clinton handshake after Bernie got off his "nobody cares about your damn emails" line. Saw it in a clip later...

Nice Catch-22 reference, too.

:-)

Michale [11] -

There are polls that are done scientifically, and there are "anybody can click in" polls. They're two different things. It's the difference between a popularity contest and statistical science.

Paula [12] -

Thanks for some solid info. Haven't checked out RCP today yet. Yeah, I think the upshot, in general, was: "Bernie and Hillary helped themselves. O'Malley was kinda OK, but nothing special. Why are the other two on the stage?"

Also, as you pointed out, "man, what a difference from the GOP!"

TheStig [15] -

Good point. It'll be interesting to see how the betting shifts in the next week, as well. Keep us posted!

Aha! Data! Let's see how it changes when the first post-debate polls (the scientific ones) come in...

Michale [19] -

That's a good question. TheStig?

TheStig [23] -

Wow, that's pretty impressive. Where's Trump?

Michale [24] -

Dang, I'm asking the same question you just did. That can't be right...

Heh.

rdnewman [25] -

Aha! More data! I love it!

How's Webb and Chafee doing? Heh.

BashiBazouk [28] -

That's an excellent point, and one I think even Bernie supporters worry about. However, the bugaboo of the "socialism" label is a whole lot less pronounced among those who never experienced the Cold War (ie., millennials). But you're right, as Cooper put it "the ads just write themselves."

Best response goes to Hillary Clinton for her response to the question about capitalism. To paraphrase, "We need to save capitalism from itself." This could have been the title of a Robert Reich book. Oh wait ... I think it is.

What's interesting to me is that corporate media declared Hillary the winner by a long shot today. And, strangely enough, all the exit polls and focus groups, declared Bernie the winner by a similarly wide margin.

What's interesting to me is that corporate media declared Hillary the winner by a long shot today. And, strangely enough, all the exit polls and focus groups, declared Bernie the winner by a similarly wide margin.

"So, what you are saying is that ALL Americans share the "collective guilt" of our ancestors vis a vis slavery and such...
EXCEPT the Democrat Party..."

That's NOT AT ALL what I am saying. Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just use it to take the opportunity to write what you wanted, while totally ignoring a response to what I actually said? How did we get to where people who hold what possibly might be considered to be racist views consider themselves to have a current political home inside a major mainstream political party TO collective guilt over the issue of slavery? It is your logic that doesn't follow Michale.

To follow your logic Michale, since the election of Republican Lincoln to the Presidency was the precipitating factor for Southern secession, should the modern day Republican Party be made to assume the collective guilt for the Civil War and all the deaths it caused, except for the Democratic Party? Especially since Republicans are the self avowed modern day champions of states rights?

It is simply a FACT that modern day segregationists find themselves more comfortable inside the Republican Party than they do inside their historical home of the Democratic Party, since the Democratic Party is currently home to 90 percent of the African American vote and people the segregationists would call "communists." Fascists and Communists loathe each other, and can't exist inside the same political party, despite the love to some Republicans wanting to lump the two together inside the Democratic Party. They are diametrically opposed political philosophies on the scale of left to right.

I've heard this elsewhere, and I think it has more to do with the personalities of the debate moderators. If the same moderators had hosted both debates, your point would be stronger, in other words.

Yes, true.. My point WOULD be stronger if it were the same moderator..

But, being that it's the same network whose bigwigs sign off on the process, it's still a valid point.

CNN wanted to stick it to the GOP and give a easier time to the Democrat Party..

You are correct. Right up until 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Since then, the migration turned into a stampede. (See: history more recent than 1964, for further facts)

But, if Americans are "responsible" (IE collective guilt) for the actions of their slave owner ancestors, then the ONLY logical conclusion is that the Democrat Party is even MORE responsible...

In other words, the Left wants Americans as a whole to embrace the collective guilt, but the Democrat Party wants to absolve ITSELF of all responsibility..

And THAT is whacked...

The real polls will be out within the next week. It takes time to do a poll right. But I must confess, I have no idea what the polling will show. Did the public agree Hillary won? Or will they shift to Bernie? Remains to be seen... patience...

Dang, I'm asking the same question you just did. That can't be right...

Heh.

G M T A :D

That's an excellent point, and one I think even Bernie supporters worry about. However, the bugaboo of the "socialism" label is a whole lot less pronounced among those who never experienced the Cold War (ie., millennials). But you're right, as Cooper put it "the ads just write themselves."

In all seriousness....

Bernie can't win the POTUS because of all the reasons mentioned..

Hillary can't win the POTUS because of her mortal wounds.. I know, I know, ya'all claim that no one cares about the Email scandal. But, the facts clearly show that no DEMOCRAT cares about the Email scandal.. Right Wing and Independent voters care a great deal about the Email scandal.. Why? Because it shows an APPALLING lack of good judgement..

Unless Biden enters the race I honestly don't see a way for the Democrat Party to keep the White House...

Hillary can't win the POTUS because of her mortal wounds.. I know, I know, ya'all claim that no one cares about the Email scandal. But, the facts clearly show that no DEMOCRAT cares about the Email scandal.. Right Wing and Independent voters care a great deal about the Email scandal.. Why? Because it shows an APPALLING lack of good judgement..

I must also point out that Hillary's showing amongst MALE voters is dismal.. Almost as bad is her showing amongst the Young vote...

She doesn't have the Independent vote. She doesn't have the Male vote... She doesn't have the Young vote..

That's NOT AT ALL what I am saying. Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just use it to take the opportunity to write what you wanted, while totally ignoring a response to what I actually said?

While it's true that I have been known to do that on occasion.. :D

This is not one of those occasions..

To follow your logic Michale, since the election of Republican Lincoln to the Presidency was the precipitating factor for Southern secession, should the modern day Republican Party be made to assume the collective guilt for the Civil War and all the deaths it caused, except for the Democratic Party? Especially since Republicans are the self avowed modern day champions of states rights?

That's the way the LEFT would think about it..

My point is a simple one..

Blaming the GOP for non-existent institutionalized racism when it's established as fact that it was the Democrat Party that was the Party of Racism, the Party of the KKK, the Party of Slavery seems a bit disingenuous to me..

I mean, it might be different if ya'all could... yunno.. actually come up with SOME evidence of institutionalized racism..

But ya can't..

So, the solution is simple...

Either come up with some hard evidence that proves institutionalized racism within the GOP....

OR....

When throwing out baseless and fact-less accusations of institutionalized racism on the part of the Republican Party, acknowledge the REAL facts of the institutionalized racist history of the Democrat Party...

Betfair, as of this AM, gives Trump about a 6% chance of being the next President.

Richard-24

I follow PreditIt too, but it's a bit clunky to search...but very detailed if you have the time. Another plus, it actually labels the date on the X-axis, which BetFair doesn't do (??!!). The volume of trade and the amount of money staked is much larger at Betfair, and I think volume is important.

All interested wonks and wonkettes:

I recommend PredictWise, which is a composite prediction using BetFair, PredictIt, bookies and polls. It typically gives predictions very similar to Betair and is an easy way to track all the above markets on a day to day basis.

M-24

My gut sez:

The odds of a Dem vs a Rep being the next President are about 60%:40%. This is about where the prediction markets are tracking, and have been for some time. These number sit comfortably in my gut this early in the game, purely on electoral college fundamentals. Much could change, only a fool doesn't hedge this far out from the big event!

Clinton is a strong favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but is not invincible. Sanders primary motivation for entering the race is to force Clinton left, but if fate gives him the nomination, he will accept. He is very unlikely to make an independent run for President (note the hand shake at the debate). Biden is a spare tire if Clinton suffers a blow out on the way to the convention, which I think unlikely. The rest of the field - DOA.

Bush is a very weak favorite to win the nomination, my gut tells me Rubio is going to give him a real battle. Trump will bow out, his motivation is to build his brand, branding, not properties is the main source of his cash flow. Everybody else in the Republican field is a dark horse shading into the dead horses Paul, Graham and Jindal.

My gut is telling me breakfast as of now. Late start today, coffee alone will not do.

I recommend PredictWise, which is a composite prediction using BetFair, PredictIt, bookies and polls. It typically gives predictions very similar to Betair and is an easy way to track all the above markets on a day to day basis.

A spare tire is a bet-hedge. Prudent redundancy. I always carry one that works, even if only for 60 miles, and driving very slowly at that....cause walking is much, much slower.

I admire Biden. I like his straight talk. I like his work ethic. I like his working class politics. Biden and Sanders are probably the least wealthy senators...because they focus on their jobs. I hope Biden enters the race, but he is entering late.

Biden is a political realist. He knows how hard it will be to start late, and that the odds are very much against him. It's going to be hard to raise money to run a competitive campaign. He knows his strong standing in the polls is a bit of an illusion...the novelty factor, which is propping up a lot of candidates on the Republican side. He also knows that Sanders is a problematic sale to both the Democratic base and the broader electorate. He knows Clinton is pretty formidable, maybe not in the polls (although relatively speaking, she is doing well in the polls)but in terms of the fundamentals, which are much more important early in the cycle. He also knows that Clinton could falter. It has happened once before in the primaries, it could happen again.

If Biden enters, he will do so to cover the downside risk to his party. I think that is a noble reason for getting into the race. Especially given the body blow of losing his son. Not that he wouldn't loveto President. Not that he wouldn't be a good President...I personally think he has very strong credentials to be President. I would vote for him should he claim the nomination - but at this time, I don't see him as the strongest Democratic choice. I judge Clinton stronger at this time. My primary consideration is keeping the Republicans from controlling House, Senate and White House.

There is nothing wrong with being a wingman covering the lead element. It's just sound tactics. Biden is Party Man, he wants a Democrat in the WH. Maybe that's a more comfortable analogy to give to you than a humble spare tire.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "SafeLink." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush. It provides free or low cost cell phones.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

With modern fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "Safe Link." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush. It provides free or low cost cell phones.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

With modern fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "SafeLink." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush. It provides free or low cost cell phones.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

With fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "SafeLink." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush. It provides free or low cost cell phones.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

With modern fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

With modern fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "SafeLink." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush. It provides free or low cost cell phones.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

With modern fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "SafeLink." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush. It provides free or low cost cell phones. The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money. The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) With modern fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

If Biden enters, he will do so to cover the downside risk to his party. I think that is a noble reason for getting into the race.

You may think that is a noble reason for entering the race but, you are wrong to believe and state that Biden will enter the race to cover the downside risk to his party.

That kind of thinking betrays a fundamental understanding of what makes Biden tick. If he enters the race, he will do so because he believes with every fiber of his being that the country he loves - NOT the party he belongs to - would benefit from at least four years of his leadership.

If Biden enters the race, I think it will be because he firmly believes that he is the best positioned with the clearest vision to succeed the Obama administration, to finish unfinished business and to set a new and more effective course - domestically and internationally - in promoting and implementing policies and strategies that will maintain the promise of America and strengthen America's global leadership role.

Biden will NOT enter another presidential campaign to be a wingman or anything else for the Democratic party.

Biden is a political realist. He knows how hard it will be to start late, and that the odds are very much against him. It's going to be hard to raise money to run a competitive campaign. He knows his strong standing in the polls is a bit of an illusion...the novelty factor, which is propping up a lot of candidates on the Republican side...

If Biden has reached these conclusion - which I think is entirely possible - he will not enter the race. Period.

That kind of thinking betrays a fundamental MIS -understanding of what makes Biden tick. If he enters the race, he will do so because he believes with every fiber of his being that the country he loves - NOT the party he belongs to - would benefit from at least four years of his leadership.

I personally think he has very strong credentials to be President. I would vote for him should he claim the nomination - but at this time, I don't see him as the strongest Democratic choice. I judge Clinton stronger at this time. My primary consideration is keeping the Republicans from controlling House, Senate and White House.

Why do you see Clinton as being stronger than Biden in terms of preventing Republicans from controlling the WH, Senate and House?

Except there is one problem with the ObamaPhone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "SafeLink." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush to provide free or low cost cell phones to the poor or disabled and elderly who may not otherwise be able to afford one.

The program is paid for by telecom companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or by ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service originated in the Reagan Administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984.

With fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy into and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

No, that's not what I was asking about ... those are reasons why you think Hillary will win the Democratic nomination and you may be right ... well, except for the direct access to WJC part. Heh.

I was asking why it is that you think Hillary would be a better Dem presidential nominee than Biden with regard to preventing Republicans from maintaining control of Congress after the 2016 presidential election.

Except there is one problem with the Obama Phone: It DOESN'T exist. The program is called "SafeLink." It was actually started in 2008 under George W. Bush. It provides free or low cost cell phones.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

With modern fact checking so readily available, I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

Actually, it started in 1996 under President Clinton... It was expanded to include cell phones under Bush in '08...

But it EXPLODED under Obama....

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

Yea, that's the Democrat Party spin..

The FACT, though, is that, while Americans don't pay for the program thru taxes, they DO pay for the program thru the extra USF (Universal Service Fund) fees that the TelComs add to people's bills...

The federal program dates back to 1996; it was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act did a number of things, including increasing internet access to doctors and patients in rural hospitals (for consults with specialists); subsidizing internet and phone coverage for schools and libraries and providing free or subsidized coverage for families who can’t afford it so that they have links to emergency and government services. The Act was not taxpayer funded… exactly. Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.” So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That’s what you’re paying for.http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/

I am surprised that you continue to buy in and push this right wing urban myth Michale.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

Yea, that's the Democrat Party spin..

The FACT, though, is that, while Americans don't pay for the program thru taxes, they DO pay for the program thru the extra USF (Universal Service Fund) fees that the TelComs add to people's bills...

The federal program dates back to 1996; it was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act did a number of things, including increasing internet access to doctors and patients in rural hospitals (for consults with specialists); subsidizing internet and phone coverage for schools and libraries and providing free or subsidized coverage for families who can’t afford it so that they have links to emergency and government services. The Act was not taxpayer funded… exactly. Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.” So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That’s what you’re paying for.

So... Yes, the program exists. No, it’s not an Obama administration program. Yes, taxpayers support it but no, not through federal income taxes.

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, and is NOT funded by the government or ANY taxpayer money.

Yea, that's the Democrat Party spin..

The federal program dates back to 1996; it was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act did a number of things, including increasing internet access to doctors and patients in rural hospitals (for consults with specialists); subsidizing internet and phone coverage for schools and libraries and providing free or subsidized coverage for families who can’t afford it so that they have links to emergency and government services. The Act was not taxpayer funded… exactly. Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.” So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That’s what you’re paying for.

"If you want to see me TOTALLY decimate your argument, JM... You'll have to click on the link. :D"

Hardly decimated Michale. Besides, if you want to get really technical; The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized (landline) phone service actually originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. :-D

You hardly decimated my argument Michale. Besides, if you want to get really technical, the idea first originated regarding landline phone service in and during the Reagan Administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984.

1996 huh? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that mean the Telecommunications Act was passed by the REPUBLICAN controlled HOUSE under NEWT GINGRICH? Just like George w. Bush instigated the Medicare Prescription Drug expansion?

By the way, My friend who is in a wheel chair and is disabled has one of those free phone he depends on to call his doctors. So I take offense at your use of "lowlifes."

I don't know about an impending apocalypse. But, I do know that the baseball gods exist and they can just as easily smile upon your favourite team as damn them to defeat.

After that thing happened in the 7th inning of the division series against the Rangers, anything is possible ... except another inning as bizarre as that one. Of course, the only thing I'll remember about that game, though, is the bat flip. It was a sight to behold ... and proof again that context means everything.

If you haven't had a chance to watch that game or at least that inning, then you are missing out on the most memorable 7th inning, ever ... bar none.